The final word on DPR, feats and class balance

[TwoSix]

That is a fabulous though boring solution.

Edit: i think doubling point blank range would be nicer than removing disadvantage in melee. You could just stab with the dagger anyway.

I'm always a fan of reskinning when possible.

And I left in the "no disadvantage" so you can run in, stab a guy, and then throw a dagger at someone else approaching. More cinematic that way.

 

[Oofta]

I guess I don't think it would be out of place, in an action movie, for a ninja to throw half-a-dozen knives or shurikens at everyone in a room (which is a rough approximation to the "blast 3" AoE of Blinding Barrage).

If it was Bullseye or Daredevil (neither of whom is magic) then it would be a single dagger or other object ricocheting from target to target!

I think that ability can also be used with a bow, which pushes thinks a bit further. But the six-second round is also a heuristic approximation rather than a metronomic natural law. (And in 5e as well, I think.)

I'm not a big fan of [insert name of extremist martial arts movies], but in movies like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, the protagonists are obviously doing supernatural things.

Even in fantasy movies like LOTR, Legoland Legolas did some things that stretched credulity but it was just barely possible. Maybe. When I think action movie logic I'm thinking more James Bond movies, not superhero movies.

Captain America that throws his shield and it bounces all over tarnation. It's a superhero movie, and this is Steve Frickin' Rogers we're talking about so it gets a pass. Same with DareDevil and Bullseye. Superhero comic strips take things to the next level. Although if you're talking the Netflix version of DareDevil, I think blinding barrage would be out of place.

In any case, it's a judgement call. Much like most people agree that the last Indiana Jones jumped the shark with the refrigerator scene, I think blinding barrage goes too far. YMMV.

The point of bringing up 4E is that there was significant effort to make different builds "balanced". To me, and to a lot of people, it never felt like D&D. There was probably a decent game in there if you could have sped up play at higher levels, but expecting 5E to do the same kind of balancing act while maintaining the feel of "classic" D&D is an impossible task.

 

[Warpiglet]

I don't think sorcerers and warlocks outclass fighters. There is more than pure damage. Being able to focus on a single target is a main concern. So you need to quicken your cantrip as sorcerer and then you burn through sorcerypoints very very fast. A warlock that focusses on just deqling damage does not do a lot else. Concentration is an often overlooked issue. A battlemaster can and will do well enough. And if you look at theawesome defenses you will see a good package.

This is on target. It is very convenient to forget that in the absence of warcaster and (for some classes) resilient-con, a spell caster would not want to be in melee. This also means that they are not up armored without multiclassing, may use shield spells more (in absence of always up casting) and so forth.

I still believe fighters have a niche and an ability that matters (AC, HP, consistent damage without concentration checks) without feats.

This in fact is more classic AD&D sfuff. Sneeze on a caster and they lose their spell in progress! Fighters were always important!

As a result, the OP concerns (from my perspective, of course) are a direct result of optional rules. Everyone I know uses them, so maybe that is a moot point. But finally, if the idea is that all fighters are forced to GWM it is because spellcaster are taking their goodies in fairly consistent fashion (e.g. warcaster, etc.).

The criticism here is that some other characters fall behind unless they get in the arms race as it were.

Following this, the question is what can be done and OP says "nothing will work."

I simply disagree (mostly with the problem) but also with the conclusion. Simple limitations leaves a much more "balanced" game in terms of DPR even if that is desirable or the metric we even want to use!

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm not a big fan of [insert name of extremist martial arts movies], but in movies like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, the protagonists are obviously doing supernatural things.

Even in fantasy movies like LOTR, Legoland Legolas did some things that stretched credulity but it was just barely possible. Maybe. When I think action movie logic I'm thinking more James Bond movies, not superhero movies.

Captain America that throws his shield and it bounces all over tarnation. It's a superhero movie, and this is Steve Frickin' Rogers we're talking about so it gets a pass. Same with DareDevil and Bullseye. Superhero comic strips take things to the next level. Although if you're talking the Netflix version of DareDevil, I think blinding barrage would be out of place.

In any case, it's a judgement call. Much like most people agree that the last Indiana Jones jumped the shark with the refrigerator scene, I think blinding barrage goes too far. YMMV.

The point of bringing up 4E is that there was significant effort to make different builds "balanced". To me, and to a lot of people, it never felt like D&D. There was probably a decent game in there if you could have sped up play at higher levels, but expecting 5E to do the same kind of balancing act while maintaining the feel of "classic" D&D is an impossible task.

Some folks want to have their mundane PCs act like superheroes from the comics. If only there was an RPG out there that emulated that...

I actually like playing that as well sometimes. But I don't think D&D is the best medium for that. D&D was originally designed to emulate sword and sorcery, not comic book super heroes. That isn't to say that playing mundane PCs doing things like Captain American isn't a valid playstyle, I just think there are different RPGs that cater to that, so trying to make D&D into that isn't going to go over well. Look at what happened to 4e when they tried it.

There's a core #1 rule in business: Never forget your brand identity. You'd think businesses would learn by now, but changing the identity of your product rarely ever works out well, especially when there are other competitors already doing what you're shifting your product line to do. Zune anyone? There are only a few exceptions. WoTC learned that the hard way by turning D&D into something that it never was (uber balance and every PC has super powers)

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

From what height can people normally fall without risk if death or debilitating long-term injury?

How tall can a humanoid be without severe, debilitating health problems, under normal assumptions about gravity?

How large can a winged creature be while being able to fly (not just glide/soar) under normal assumptions about gravity.

How large can an arthropod grow, under normal assumptions about gravity?

Mostly? No, about the only D&D assumption about gravity & our relationship with it that's remotely normal is jumping distances...
... and even 20th level Experts in Athetics won't be winning a lot of long jump medals.

My classic-AD&D Bohemian Ear-Spoon disagrees!

My 5e monk always looks for the highest thing he can jump off of to deliver a flying head-butt. 75' is his high so far. He's 5th level and at this point gravity just don't matter very much. Once you get to a certain level of HP why take the stairs when you can jump off the tower?

 

[Tony Vargas]

. In a more realistic game, a long bow should do significantly more damage, but that's one of the (many) compromises D&D makes.

In a more realistic game a knife in the back would kill far more often than an arrow at 200 yds.

In genre, neither will kill the hero, unless it's his time, and both will kill a mook just fine when the hero uses them.

Hit points are the compromise for better genre emulation and playability over realism. Bigger weapons doing bigger damage is just intuitive. But smaller weapons doing far less max damage is unrealistic for any weapon that can kill. ::shrug::

Ultimately, the level of realism in D&D, in general, is very, very low, while the level specific things are held to in discussions is much higher - sometimes even to the level if reality-isnt-real.

PCs in 4E that were supposedly not using supernatural powers did things all the time that would look out of place in an action movie

4e did 'Action movie' almost too well - better than it did fantasy. The most reviled-as-magic of all fighter power, Come & Get It, straight out if any action movie where the hero inexplicably uses a melee weapon over a gun...

Non-supernatural PCs in 5E (and basically all non-4E versions of D&D) push what is possible,

Rarely, outside of hps and, with 6 sec rounds, RoF, which breaks what's possible to pieces.
OTOH, Sometimes they're even pushed in the wrong direction, there are many things a genre hero will do w/o magic that D&D has often resorted to spells or arbitrary special abilities, to model - or am I the only one who remembers Giants in the Earth...

The point of bringing up 4E is that there was significant effort to make different builds "balanced". To me, and to a lot of people, it never felt like D&D. ...but expecting 5E to do the same kind of balancing act while maintaining the feel of "classic" D&D is an impossible task.

Can't argue with that: the 'feel' of classic D&D is class imbalance.

But, I don't even think that's the imbalance at issue, here, caster supremacy isn't being challenged in this thread, mainly its the weight given to weapon choice, at bottom, that's triggered the OP...

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think they need any advice, they're an experienced group putting in the work to get what they want out if it. They just seem to be dissatisfied with how much that is, compared to what they got out of 3.x/PF.

So how should they go about addressing that dissatisfaction? Do you think they need to go with the "tall order" Zapp mentioned in the OP? Do you share the concerns cited? Some, all?

Run, almost never a player.

'Occasion' as in running up against the same issues.

I've had the occasion to run into the same issues. I just don't think that those issues are nearly as meaningful for my game than for his.

I'll ask again, because I'm curious for your answer but you edited it out:
Would the combat oriented feats be more important in a game with more combat or a game with less?

Hey, as long as you admit It... ; )

Meh, if you think that disagreeing with someone is taking a shot at them, then sure, I took a shot.

The game is what it is. Differing opinions don't change that...
...DMs do.

Then they'd have no problem.

I don't think so. they want balance as it relates to DPR. That desire is the direct cause of their dissatisfaction. They have a problem because DPR is their main concern.

If the players didn't worry about parity in the DPR area, then when the multiclassed warlock/sorcerer used his Exploitation Blast to do 846 points of damage in one round, the other players would simply say "wow, impressive" and there would be no issue.

. Too easy a dismissal for what 5e's meant to be, IMHO.

Not at all. I think they can solve the issue. I think the game is customizable enough to get the results they want. However, if they're not willing or able to seek solutions and try things out, then my follow up advice would be to try an edition or game that was more supportive of their desired playstyle.

Yep, but turn on feats, now there's more.

Sure, but you can always add more. You're missing my point. The Feat isn't necessary to create a Robin Hood type character. Not unless you thought such a character couldn't exist prior to 3E and the introduction of Feats.

the -5/+10 aspects of those feats...and the ones that grant extra attacks, as well...don't really add anything to a character concept. I can make a Robin Hood type character without them. No one looks at a Robin Hood movie and thinks "wow he must have done +10 damage on that shot!"

Now, to relate back to Zapp's OP....he feels that these feats are necessary because otherwise the Fighter and other martials may fall behind on DPR compared to certain casters. So, let's say that his group agreed to not play those cross class combos that resulted in the overpowered cantrips....if they did that, then the -5/+10 feats can go.

Alternatively, instead of removing those Feats, you could simply grant anyone the ability to take -5 on an attack to grant +10 to damage. This would work for martials and for cantrip casters.

Evoking the classic game is a major point of 5e, after all.

It's not like, ultimately, it's a "5e Problem," it's a D&D problem.

Sure, I'd agree with you there. I just think that given the other design goals of scaling the numbers and bounded accuracy and the like that the -5/+10 bits are out of place. My guess on their inclusion is that they felt there would be backlash if there were not 3E style feats included. I remember looking over the Feat list when 5E first came out, and being kind of surprised with how much of a departure the feats seemed to be. Then I saw Great Weapon Master and I felt comforted. That was my reaction at the time....now I wish they had ditched them. Or maybe designed a feat that worked more like Weapon Specialization, where it can be selected by anyone, and they can choose the weapon they want to use it with.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So how should they go about addressing that dissatisfaction? Do you think they need to go with the "tall order" Zapp mentioned in the OP?

I suspect they'll check out PF2, and go with that, or back to 3.x or something.
Which is sad, because 5e was s'posed't'be for everyone....
;(

Do you share the concerns cited? Some, all?

Meh. I don't use feats or MCing or Inspiration unless I have to, but that's as much convienence as 'concern.' I acknowledge the issues, though, they're real enough, and they're hardly the only ones. Depending on how you rule on the broad swaths of the rules that are ambiguous, the few that seem problematic 'As Written' can fade into the background or come to fore - and you can create/solve all sorts of other problems, too.

In 3.5 or 4e I'd be more concerned about issues being dismissed, because the rules were more concrete and the game was supposed to work (a certain way), again, "As Written." 5e, DM Empowerment, Rulings over Rules - I still have to acknowledge a mechanical issue, and don't want to see one dismissed out of hand, but the game really exists more in the moment, at the table, not in the rulebook, nor even at chargen/level-up.

I'll ask again, because I'm curious for your answer

If it wasn't a rhetorical question, it might as well be a tautology.

But, just as 5e assumes 6-8 encounters for it's balance point, because it gives classes different resource models, it also necessarily assumes a ratio among the pillars, because it gives classes different levels of competence within each, as well. Really, there's a very narrow range of potential ways to play, if you want the game to balance, mechanically, on its own. (I'd say 'without intervention' but sticking to that straight and narrow is, itself, intervention.)

. they want balance as it relates to DPR. That desire is the direct cause of their dissatisfaction. They have a problem because DPR is their main concern.

They want DPR builds to balance with DPR builds, that's not the same thing as DPR being the main concern, or they'd be all over trying to boost DPR outside the weapon users who have little else to contribute. Instead, the excess DPR of the feat-optimized fighter is viewed as merely rendering the class viable.

Not at all. I think they can solve the issue. I think the game is customizable enough to get the results they want.

Again, sounds like he has, but is unhappy with what doing so necessitates, in terms of ongoing effort.

You're missing my point. The Feat isn't necessary to create a Robin Hood type character. Not unless you thought such a character couldn't exist prior to 3E and the introduction of Feats.

Actually, that's not entirely unfair to say. Fighters were very generic until they lucked into a defining magic item, prior to 3e, and the lack of skills also hurt attempts at the Robin Hood (or almost any other) archetype. Though weapon specialization obviously, let you be exceptional with a bow, it was about damage through RoF, primarily (+1 to hit won't win you many archery contests).
SS at least gives you startling accuracy at long range & vs cover.

But 'necessary' is relative. If the option is there, to be the best, you 'need' it. One of the problem with pouring too many options into a list-based game, it creates incompetence in those who don't immediately snap up the relevant new options, when, before, they were as good as could be. (Obviously that doesn't imply everyone should suck exactly the same at everything to 'avoid bloat' or anything, it's just a design consideration.)

he feels that these feats are necessary because otherwise the Fighter and other martials may fall behind on DPR compared to certain casters.

Don't stay far enough ahead in DPR to make up for caster versatility, anyway.

Sure, I'd agree with you there. I just think that given the other design goals of scaling the numbers and bounded accuracy and the like that the -5/+10 bits are out of place.

The -5 actually fits neatly with BA: without BA, it'd be too great a penalty at low level, and trivial at high.

My guess on their inclusion is that they felt there would be backlash if there were not 3E style feats included.

No question. Things were included, excluded, & designed to avoid another edition war, to evoke classic feel, promote DM Empowerment, and to seem accessible from a distance (not look intimidating on the shelf).
Balance was never on the table - ironically, except for the easily-checked DPR.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I wonder if a big point is being glossed over here. In a full campaign, let's say level 1 to 12 anyway, the fighter protects the wizard early on because... strong fighter squishy wizard. If around level 9 (or whatever) the wizard then somehow is doling out more DPR and wiping out a bunch more foes in crowded encounters than the fighter, then the fighter can just say: "Thanks party friend - we sure have been through a lot together and I'm super glad I kept you alive when you were all, you know, squishy and stuff". The wizard tips her pointy hat and nods knowingly to the fighter as the thief steals her pouch of fake platinum coins because... divination wizard saw that coming, too. Now that's a part of the story of team growth that gets lost if every PC just marched to the samey DPR beat throughout dozens and dozens of sessions.

 

[TwoSix]

I wonder if a big point is being glossed over here. In a full campaign, let's say level 1 to 12 anyway, the fighter protects the wizard early on because... strong fighter squishy wizard. If around level 9 (or whatever) the wizard then somehow is doling out more DPR and wiping out a bunch more foes in crowded encounters than the fighter, then the fighter can just say: "Thanks party friend - we sure have been through a lot together and I'm super glad I kept you alive when you were all, you know, squishy and stuff". The wizard tips her pointy hat and nods knowingly to the fighter as the thief steals her pouch of fake platinum coins because... divination wizard saw that coming, too. Now that's a part of the story of team growth that gets lost if every PC just marched to the samey DPR beat throughout dozens and dozens of sessions.

That's because "balance over campaign" is something that was part of TSR-era D&D, but hasn't been brought forward into WotC-era D&D. 3e still had some remnants, but that was an atavism of the inherited class design more than an actual design intent. Outside of people playing intentionally old-school style games, no one recommends making new people start at level 1, which is really a requirement to make "balance over campaign" function. Otherwise you simply make the "strong at high level" class a replacement character once you get to those levels. (And I'm speaking from experience, as I've done this intentionally in 3e.)